Curt Doolittle

Theme: Governance

  • LIES. DAMNED LIES. “The welfare of the people in particular has always been the

    LIES. DAMNED LIES.

    “The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.”

    –Albert Camus

    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-16 12:03:00 UTC

  • UN AGENDA 21 1) End National Sovereignty 2) State planning and management of ALL

    UN AGENDA 21

    1) End National Sovereignty

    2) State planning and management of ALL land resources, ecosystems, deserts, forest, mountains, oceans and fresh water (achieved), biotechnology, rural development, agriculture.

    3) State mandated equity (everyone equally enslaved).

    4) The state to “define the role” of business and financial resources.

    5) Abolition of private property.

    6) Restructuring the family unit

    7) Children raised by the state

    OUR LIBERTARIAN AGENDA

    1) Dramatically increase the number of nations, and the sovereignty of each. (End the totalitarian empires)

    2) Corporatize all national resources, with contractual obligation for preservation. (Restore the civil society)

    3) Privatize administration of all resources through competing groups. (restore the civil society.)

    4) Give standing to all shareholders for violation of contracts by any group or individual for any reason.

    5) Grant all human beings equal private property rights.

    6) Allow free competition now that any citizen can sue any individual or organization for ‘constitutional’ violations without the ability of special interests, the state, or politicians to interfere.

    7) Let each region compete and serve their population – their tribe. Humans are redistributive when a homogenous family (tribe) and not so when diverse.

    8) Each region will cater to different family structures, from the individual, to the absolute nuclear family, to the nuclear, to the traditional, to the extended to the tribal.

    9) Any individual is free to move to any region that will have him or her.

    10) Arm every man, stockpile small arms, and eliminate all armies, navies, and air forces except for nuclear weapons as a promise of mutually assured destruction.

    11) Forbid the agglomeration of states into empires, under threat of war.

    OUR WAY IS BETTER. HAPPIER. WITH LESS CONFLICT. AND LESS OPPRESSION

    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-16 09:35:00 UTC

  • IDEALISM AND LYING (venting)(contemporary american politics) You know, Bush was

    IDEALISM AND LYING

    (venting)(contemporary american politics)

    You know, Bush was morally driven, idealistic and strategically stupid at times, but he wasn’t a liar. Anything but.

    This guy, Obama, is morally drive, idealist, and strategically stupid, and he’s the laziest, most profligate liar, we’ve ever had in the presidency.

    That is the difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives speak in arational language. Progressives speak in obscurant language, and where they can’t they just basically lie.

    Conservatives protect against incrementalism. Progressives APPLY incrementalism.

    (I don’t like politics, my work is political economy. But this guy, well, he’s just the worst thing to happen to this country since Johnson.)

    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-15 06:41:00 UTC

  • We are only truly equal if we are armed

    We are only truly equal if we are armed.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-14 13:22:00 UTC

  • WHY DOESN’T IT OCCUR TO US THAT WE DON’T NEED A SINGLE, MONOPOLY GOVERNMENT? I m

    WHY DOESN’T IT OCCUR TO US THAT WE DON’T NEED A SINGLE, MONOPOLY GOVERNMENT?

    I mean, why does that make sense? If the problem is, that each of us wants different distribution of property rights, then why cant we form organizations with different property rights? It’s not like courts don’t adjudicate by property rights anyway. They have to. Our disputes are over behavior in public, our ability to insulate ourselves from certain kinds of public behavior, and to choose to invest in family and relations, or individuals and the commons.

    Surely interpersonal disputes over property, and insurance disputes over our claims on one another through our government are not required to be the same.

    The only reason to have a single government, is so that you can oppress and steal. Since it’s not possible to cooperate without personal property rights, and the entire world has finally adopted that position, the question is only what is done with the proceeds of labor and exchange. How much do we get to keep? What is our ‘FEE’ for insurance by our government.

    But there isn’t really any reason you can’t join your own government, when government is not much more than an insurance company.

    The only reason for any monopoly is extort from people. That’s what monopolies do. Public OR private.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-14 10:09:00 UTC

  • GAME OF THE YEAR: “GOVERNMENT ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE” (updated) 🙂 I want to play zom

    GAME OF THE YEAR: “GOVERNMENT ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE” (updated) 🙂

    I want to play zombie apocalypse game where all the zombies are different levels of politicians, bureaucrats, public sector workers. Everyone, in the government, for some reason, is infected with the virus of totalitarian humanism, or maybe it was a verbal information virus created by german postmodernists, or maybe it was put on all government paychecks like in ‘the white plague’.

    Whatever the cause, they’re all ‘infected’ and will turn into unstoppable zombies if we don’t kill them fast enough. The longer they’re zombies, the stronger they are and the harder to kill. In groups they can feed off each other, and ‘heal’, albeit slowly. They chase other uninfected statists, and if they attack them long enough, the statists turn into zombies too. But both the zombies and the statists will try to kill you. The statists to take your money and weapons. The zombies for your flesh. You get all sorts of upgrades for killing increasing levels of statists: you get your constitutional rights back as you kill them and this gives you upgrades (access to find) new sorts of weapons.

    Best if it’s a multiplayer, team based game.

    Freaking hilarious. And it would actually be really fun to play.

    “Left for Dead : Anti-State Version”

    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-13 09:35:00 UTC

  • CLINTON, NOW OBAMA The Destruction Of The Officer Corp

    http://www.wnd.com/2013/11/obama-building-compliant-officer-class/FIRST CLINTON, NOW OBAMA

    The Destruction Of The Officer Corp

    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-13 07:21:00 UTC

  • GAME OF THE YEAR: “GOVERNMENT ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE” (updated) 🙂 I want to play zom

    GAME OF THE YEAR: “GOVERNMENT ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE” (updated) 🙂

    I want to play zombie apocalypse game where all the zombies are different levels of politicians, bureaucrats, public sector workers. Everyone, in the government, for some reason, is infected with the virus of totalitarian humanism, or maybe it was a verbal information virus created by german postmodernists, or maybe it was put on all government paychecks like in ‘the white plague’.

    Whatever the cause, they’re all ‘infected’ and will turn into unstoppable zombies if we don’t kill them fast enough. The longer they’re zombies, the stronger they are and the harder to kill. In groups they can feed off each other, and ‘heal’, albeit slowly. They chase other uninfected statists, and if they attack them long enough, the statists turn into zombies too. But both the zombies and the statists will try to kill you. The statists to take your money and weapons. The zombies for your flesh. You get all sorts of upgrades for killing increasing levels of statists: you get your constitutional rights back as you kill them and this gives you upgrades (access to find) new sorts of weapons.

    Best if it’s a multiplayer, team based game.

    Freaking hilarious. And it would actually be really fun to play.

    “Left for Dead : Anti-State Version”

    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-13 04:25:00 UTC

  • ON ONE POSSIBLE USE FOR VOTING (cross posted for archiving) The only argument th

    ON ONE POSSIBLE USE FOR VOTING

    (cross posted for archiving)

    The only argument that I can prove that includes voting is:

    (a) It is necessary for groups to have people who make decisions on behalf of the group (iron law of oligarchy). However oligarchies form whenever leaders are chosen. Therefore the Athenian tactic of Lottocracy appears to be the only solution that we know of that produces leaders who rotate as do juries, and who cannot easily be coerced (special interests) nor can they obtain power. I cannot be certain this wouldn’t exacerbate the problem of renters versus owners, but the evidence from juries is that no, it actually does the opposite.

    (b) If these lottocratic leaders choose a set of policies, we can each vote our tax dollars for or not-for those initiatives. This has a lot of value in that it requires us to pay taxes in order to vote and influence decisions. This keeps taxes relatively flat, otherwise it puts too much control in the hands of the very wealthy. Now, it’s also possible to start discounting ones contributions at some point but I’m still not sure that’s very good. In other words, say a lot of you pay 100$ and someone else pays 1B$. Now, you should be pretty happy that your initiative gets funded and tat you can use your money on LESSER INITIATIVES.

    I won’t go into all the different games that can be played under this scenario, but they’re reasonably easy to defend against if you can’t legislate involuntary transfers ,or taxes, you can only have a group of people get together to spend money for this one year.

    If a group deals with a single year, and cannot make multi-year commitments, and if their contracts only last a year, then it is very hard for ‘fashionable but bad ideas” to become institutionalized as they do under law and bureaucracy.

    Anyway. If you want voting of any kind, the combination of (a) public intellectuals conducting a debate, rather than politicians (b) lottocratic juries selecting proposed initiatives, (c) and economic democracy for voting.

    I think you’re pretty likely to get to the land of OZ better than any other solution that we have. I mean, parties and politicians have a pretty bad record. And bureaucracies are even worse.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-13 02:23:00 UTC

  • THE REASON YOU USE THE WORD ‘LIBERTY’ AND NOT ‘ARISTOCRACY’? Because you are car

    THE REASON YOU USE THE WORD ‘LIBERTY’ AND NOT ‘ARISTOCRACY’?

    Because you are carrying around the enlightenment error that anyone other than egalitarian aristocracy actually desires liberty. They don’t.

    Aristocracy:

    1) Private Property Rights in exchange for contributing Perpetual Military Service in the defense of private property rights of all who have earned them.

    2) Egalitarianism: anyone willing to also grant rights and contribute service can also gain those rights by contributing that service.

    3) Denial, by promise of violence, of any and all concentration of power sufficient to alter the distribution of property and property rights.

    4) The Absolute Nuclear Family and Prohibition on inbreeding.

    5) Chivalry: Social Status Through Charity, and service as well as through arms.

    6) Decision Making by majority vote of those who have earned property rights.

    Aristocracy is tribal paternity and property rights, open to all who will equally grant them, and defend them.

    LIBERTY EXPRESSED AS A ‘RIGHT’ IS AN ATTEMPT TO GAIN PROPERTY RIGHTS AT A DISCOUNT, AND NOTHING ELSE.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-12 12:02:00 UTC